Review: Volume 48 - Political Philosophy

Review: Volume 48 - Political Philosophy

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

C.L.R. James was a leading figure in the independence movement in the West Indies and the black and working-class movements in both Britain and the US. As a major contributor to Marxist and revolutionary theory, his project was to discover, document and elaborate the aspects of working-class activity that constitute the revolution in today's world. In this essential volume in the study of James' work, Noel Ignatiev provides an extensive introduction to James' life and thought, before presenting two critical works which illustrate the breadth and depth of his work.

The Wives of Western Philosophy Gender Politics in Intellectual Labor

Shopping Cart Summary

What are VitalSource eBooks?

Routledge & CRC Press eBooks are available through VitalSource. The free VitalSource Bookshelf® application allows you to access to your eBooks whenever and wherever you choose.

  • Mobile/eReaders &ndash Download the Bookshelf mobile app at or from the iTunes or Android store to access your eBooks from your mobile device or eReader.
  • Offline Computer &ndash Download Bookshelf software to your desktop so you can view your eBooks with or without Internet access. » » »

Most VitalSource eBooks are available in a reflowable EPUB format which allows you to resize text to suit you and enables other accessibility features. Where the content of the eBook requires a specific layout, or contains maths or other special characters, the eBook will be available in PDF (PBK) format, which cannot be reflowed. For both formats the functionality available will depend on how you access the ebook (via Bookshelf Online in your browser or via the Bookshelf app on your PC or mobile device).


Ancient traditions Edit

Ancient India Edit

Indian political philosophy in ancient times demarcated a clear distinction between (1) nation and state (2) religion and state. The constitutions of Hindu states evolved over time and were based on political and legal treatises and prevalent social institutions. The institutions of state were broadly divided into governance, administration, defense, law and order. Mantranga, the principal governing body of these states, consisted of the King, Prime Minister, Commander in chief of army, Chief Priest of the King. The Prime Minister headed the committee of ministers along with head of executive (Maha Amatya).

Chanakya was a 4th-century BC Indian political philosopher. The Arthashastra provides an account of the science of politics for a wise ruler, policies for foreign affairs and wars, the system of a spy state and surveillance and economic stability of the state. [4] Chanakya quotes several authorities including Bruhaspati, Ushanas, Prachetasa Manu, Parasara, and Ambi, and described himself as a descendant of a lineage of political philosophers, with his father Chanaka being his immediate predecessor. [5] Another influential extant Indian treatise on political philosophy is the Sukra Neeti. [6] [7] An example of a code of law in ancient India is the Manusmṛti or Laws of Manu. [8]

Ancient China Edit

Chinese political philosophy dates back to the Spring and Autumn period, specifically with Confucius in the 6th century BC. Chinese political philosophy was developed as a response to the social and political breakdown of the country characteristic of the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period. The major philosophies during the period, Confucianism, Legalism, Mohism, Agrarianism and Taoism, each had a political aspect to their philosophical schools. Philosophers such as Confucius, Mencius, and Mozi, focused on political unity and political stability as the basis of their political philosophies. Confucianism advocated a hierarchical, meritocratic government based on empathy, loyalty, and interpersonal relationships. Legalism advocated a highly authoritarian government based on draconian punishments and laws. Mohism advocated a communal, decentralized government centered on frugality and asceticism. The Agrarians advocated a peasant utopian communalism and egalitarianism. [9] Taoism advocated a proto-anarchism. Legalism was the dominant political philosophy of the Qin Dynasty, but was replaced by State Confucianism in the Han Dynasty. Prior to China's adoption of communism, State Confucianism remained the dominant political philosophy of China up to the 20th century. [10]

Ancient Greece Edit

Western political philosophy originates in the philosophy of ancient Greece, where political philosophy dates back to at least Plato. [11] Ancient Greece was dominated by city-states, which experimented with various forms of political organization, grouped by Plato into five categories of descending stability and morality: monarchy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. One of the first, extremely important classical works of political philosophy is Plato's Republic, [11] which was followed by Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Politics. [12] Roman political philosophy was influenced by the Stoics and the Roman statesman Cicero. [13]

Medieval Christianity Edit

Saint Augustine Edit

The early Christian philosophy of Augustine of Hippo was heavily influenced by Plato. A key change brought about by Christian thought was the moderation of the Stoicism and theory of justice of the Roman world, as well emphasis on the role of the state in applying mercy as a moral example. Augustine also preached that one was not a member of his or her city, but was either a citizen of the City of God (Civitas Dei) or the City of Man (Civitas Terrena). Augustine's City of God is an influential work of this period that attacked the thesis, held by many Christian Romans, that the Christian view could be realized on Earth. [14]

St. Thomas Aquinas Edit

Thomas Aquinas meticulously dealt with the varieties of philosophy of law. According to Aquinas, there are four kinds of law:

  1. Eternal law ("the divine government of everything") (having been "posited" by God external to human nature) (the right way of living discoverable by natural reason what cannot-not be known internal to human nature)
  2. Human law (what we commonly call "law"—including customary law the law of the Communitas Perfecta)

Aquinas never discusses the nature or categorization of canon law. There is scholarly debate surrounding the place of canon law within the Thomistic jurisprudential framework.

Aquinas was an incredibly influential thinker in the Natural Law tradition.

Islamic Political Evolution Edit

Mutazilite vs. Asharite Edit

The rise of Islam, based on both the Qur'an and Muhammad strongly altered the power balances and perceptions of origin of power in the Mediterranean region. Early Islamic philosophy emphasized an inexorable link between science and religion, and the process of ijtihad to find truth—in effect all philosophy was "political" as it had real implications for governance. This view was challenged by the "rationalist" Mutazilite philosophers, who held a more Hellenic view, reason above revelation, and as such are known to modern scholars as the first speculative theologians of Islam they were supported by a secular aristocracy who sought freedom of action independent of the Caliphate. By the late ancient period, however, the "traditionalist" Asharite view of Islam had in general triumphed. According to the Asharites, reason must be subordinate to the Quran and the Sunna. [15]

Islamic political philosophy, was, indeed, rooted in the very sources of Islam—i.e., the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the words and practices of Muhammad—thus making it essentially theocratic. However, in Western thought, it is generally supposed that it was a specific area peculiar merely to the great philosophers of Islam: al-Kindi (Alkindus), al-Farabi (Abunaser), İbn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Bajjah (Avempace) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). The political conceptions of Islam such as kudrah (power), sultan, ummah, cemaa (obligation)-and even the "core" terms of the Qur'an—i.e., ibadah (worship), din (religion), rab (master) and ilah (deity)—is taken as the basis of an analysis. Hence, not only the ideas of the Muslim political philosophers but also many other jurists and ulama posed political ideas and theories. For example, the ideas of the Khawarij in the very early years of Islamic history on Khilafa and Ummah, or that of Shia Islam on the concept of Imamah are considered proofs of political thought. The clashes between the Ehl-i Sunna and Shia in the 7th and 8th centuries had a genuine political character. Political thought was not purely rooted in theism, however. Aristotleanism flourished as the Islamic Golden Age saw rise to a continuation of the peripatetic philosophers who implemented the ideas of Aristotle in the context of the Islamic world. Abunaser, Avicenna and Ibn Rushd where part of this philosophical school who claimed that human reason surpassed mere coincidence and revelation. They believed, for example, that natural phenomena occur because of certain rules (made by god), not because god interfered directly (unlike Al-Ghazali and his followers). [16] [17] [18]

Other notable political philosophers of the time include Nizam al-Mulk, a Persian scholar and vizier of the Seljuq Empire who composed the Siyasatnama, or the "Book of Government" in English. In it, he details the role of the state in terms of political affairs (i.e. how to deal with political opponents without ruining the government's image), as well as its duty to protect the poor and reward the worthy. In his other work, he explains how the state should deal with other issues such as supplying jobs to immigrants like the Turkmens who were coming from the north (present day southern Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan). [19]

Ibn Khaldun Edit

The 14th-century Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun is considered one of the greatest political theorists. The British philosopher-anthropologist Ernest Gellner considered Ibn Khaldun's definition of government, ". an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself," the best in the history of political theory. For Ibn Khaldun, government should be restrained to a minimum for as a necessary evil, it is the constraint of men by other men. [20]

Medieval Europe Edit

Medieval political philosophy in Europe was heavily influenced by Christian thinking. It had much in common with the Mutazilite Islamic thinking in that the Roman Catholics thought subordinating philosophy to theology did not subject reason to revelation but in the case of contradictions, subordinated reason to faith as the Asharite of Islam. The Scholastics by combining the philosophy of Aristotle with the Christianity of St. Augustine emphasized the potential harmony inherent in reason and revelation. [21] Perhaps the most influential political philosopher of medieval Europe was St. Thomas Aquinas who helped reintroduce Aristotle's works, which had only been transmitted to Catholic Europe through Muslim Spain, along with the commentaries of Averroes. Aquinas's use of them set the agenda, for scholastic political philosophy dominated European thought for centuries even unto the Renaissance. [22]

Some medieval political philosophers, such as Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, developed the idea that a king who is a tyrant is no king at all and could be overthrown. Others, like Nicole Oresme in his Livre de Politiques, categorically denied this right to overthrow an unjust ruler.

The Magna Carta, viewed by many as a cornerstone of Anglo-American political liberty, explicitly proposes the right to revolt against the ruler for justice's sake. Other documents similar to Magna Carta are found in other European countries such as Spain and Hungary. [23]

European Renaissance Edit

During the Renaissance secular political philosophy began to emerge after about a century of theological political thought in Europe. While the Middle Ages did see secular politics in practice under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire, the academic field was wholly scholastic and therefore Christian in nature.

Niccolò Machiavelli Edit

One of the most influential works during this burgeoning period was Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince, written between 1511–12 and published in 1532, after Machiavelli's death. That work, as well as The Discourses, a rigorous analysis of classical antiquity, did much to influence modern political thought in the West. A minority (including Jean-Jacques Rousseau) interpreted The Prince as a satire meant to be given to the Medici after their recapture of Florence and their subsequent expulsion of Machiavelli from Florence. [24] Though the work was written for the di Medici family in order to perhaps influence them to free him from exile, Machiavelli supported the Republic of Florence rather than the oligarchy of the di Medici family. At any rate, Machiavelli presents a pragmatic and somewhat consequentialist view of politics, whereby good and evil are mere means used to bring about an end—i.e., the acquisition and maintenance of absolute power. Thomas Hobbes, well known for his theory of the social contract, goes on to expand this view at the start of the 17th century during the English Renaissance. Although neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes believed in the divine right of kings, they both believed in the inherent selfishness of the individual. It was necessarily this belief that led them to adopt a strong central power as the only means of preventing the disintegration of the social order. [25]

European Enlightenment Edit

During the Enlightenment period, new theories emerged about what the human was and is and about the definition of reality and the way it was perceived, along with the discovery of other societies in the Americas, and the changing needs of political societies (especially in the wake of the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Haitian Revolution). These new theories led to new questions and insights by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Benjamin Constant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

These theorists were driven by two basic questions: one, by what right or need do people form states and two, what the best form for a state could be. These fundamental questions involved a conceptual distinction between the concepts of "state" and "government." It was decided that "state" would refer to a set of enduring institutions through which power would be distributed and its use justified. The term "government" would refer to a specific group of people who occupied the institutions of the state, and create the laws and ordinances by which the people, themselves included, would be bound. This conceptual distinction continues to operate in political science, although some political scientists, philosophers, historians and cultural anthropologists have argued that most political action in any given society occurs outside of its state, and that there are societies that are not organized into states that nevertheless must be considered in political terms. As long as the concept of natural order was not introduced, the social sciences could not evolve independently of theistic thinking. Since the cultural revolution of the 17th century in England, which spread to France and the rest of Europe, society has been considered subject to natural laws akin to the physical world. [26]

Political and economic relations were drastically influenced by these theories as the concept of the guild was subordinated to the theory of free trade, and Roman Catholic dominance of theology was increasingly challenged by Protestant churches subordinate to each nation-state, which also (in a fashion the Roman Catholic Church often decried angrily) preached in the vulgar or native language of each region. Free trade, as opposed to these religious theories, is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports. It can also be understood as the free market idea applied to international trade. In government, free trade is predominantly advocated by political parties that hold liberal economic positions while economically left-wing and nationalist political parties generally support protectionism, the opposite of free trade. However, the enlightenment was an outright attack on religion, particularly Christianity. The most outspoken critic of the church in France was François Marie Arouet de Voltaire, a representative figure of the enlightenment.

Historians have described Voltaire's description of the history of Christianity as "propagandistic".Voltaire is partially responsible for the misattribution of the expression Credo quia absurdum to the Church Fathers. In a letter to Frederick II, King of Prussia, dated 5 January 1767, he wrote about Christianity: La nôtre [religion] est sans contredit la plus ridicule, la plus absurde, et la plus sanguinaire qui ait jamais infecté le monde. "Ours [i.e., the Christian religion] is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world. Your Majesty will do the human race an eternal service by extirpating this infamous superstition, I do not say among the rabble, who are not worthy of being enlightened and who are apt for every yoke I say among honest people, among men who think, among those who wish to think. . My one regret in dying is that I cannot aid you in this noble enterprise, the finest and most respectable which the human mind can point out." After Voltaire, religion would never be the same again in France. [27]

As well, there was no spread of this doctrine within the New World and the advanced civilizations of the Aztec, Maya, Inca, Mohican, Delaware, Huron and especially the Iroquois. The Iroquois philosophy, in particular, gave much to Christian thought of the time and in many cases actually inspired some of the institutions adopted in the United States: for example, Benjamin Franklin was a great admirer of some of the methods of the Iroquois Confederacy, and much of early American literature emphasized the political philosophy of the natives. The Iroquois (/ˈɪrəkwɔɪ/ or /ˈɪrəkwɑː/) or Haudenosaunee are a historically powerful northeast Native American confederacy in North America. They were known during the colonial years to the French as the Iroquois League, and later as the Iroquois Confederacy, and to the English as the Five Nations, comprising the Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, and Seneca. After 1722, they accepted the Tuscarora people from the Southeast into their confederacy, as they were also Iroquoian-speaking, and became known as the Six Nations. [28]

John Locke Edit

John Locke in particular exemplified this new age of political theory with his work Two Treatises of Government. In it Locke proposes a state of nature theory that directly complements his conception of how political development occurs and how it can be founded through contractual obligation. Locke stood to refute Sir Robert Filmer's paternally founded political theory in favor of a natural system based on nature in a particular given system. The theory of the divine right of kings became a passing fancy, exposed to the type of ridicule with which John Locke treated it. Unlike Machiavelli and Hobbes but like Aquinas, Locke would accept Aristotle's dictum that man seeks to be happy in a state of social harmony as a social animal. Unlike Aquinas's preponderant view on the salvation of the soul from original sin, Locke believes man's mind comes into this world as tabula rasa. For Locke, knowledge is neither innate, revealed nor based on authority but subject to uncertainty tempered by reason, tolerance and moderation. According to Locke, an absolute ruler as proposed by Hobbes is unnecessary, for natural law is based on reason and seeking peace and survival for man.

John Stuart Mill Edit

John Stuart Mill's work on political philosophy begins in On Liberty, On Liberty is the most influential statement of his liberal principles. He begins by distinguishing old and new threats to liberty. The old threat to liberty is found in traditional societies in which there is rule by one (a monarchy) or a few (an aristocracy). Though one could be worried about restrictions on liberty by benevolent monarchs or aristocrats, the traditional worry is that when rulers are politically unaccountable to the governed they will rule in their own interests, rather than the interests of the governed. Mill's explicit theory of rights is introduced in Chapter V of Utilitarianism in the context of his sanction theory of duty, which is an indirect form of utilitarianism that identifies wrong actions as actions that it is useful to sanction. Mill then introduces justice as a proper part of the duty. Justice involves duties that are perfect duties—that is, duties that are correlated with rights. Justice implies something which it is not only right to do, and wrong not to do, but which some individual person can claim from us as a matter of right. These perfect duties will thus create liberty and collective freedom within a state. He uses, On Liberty to discuss gender equality in society. To Mill, Utilitarianism was the perfect tool to justify gender equality in The Subjection of Women, referring to the political, lawful and social subjection of women. When a woman was married, she entered legally binding coverture with her husband once she married her legal existence as an individual was suspended under "marital unity". While it is easy to presume that a woman would not marry under these circumstances, being unmarried had social consequences. A woman could only advance in social stature and wealth if she had a rich husband to do the groundwork. Mill uses his Utilitarian ethics to assess how gender equality would be the best way to achieve "the greatest good for the greatest number" : "The principle that regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes … and is now one of the chief obstacles to human improvement…"

The ‘chief obstacle’ to Mill relates to women's intellectual capability. The Subjection of Women looks at this in the women of society and argues that diminishing their intellectual potential wastes the knowledge and skill of half of the population such knowledge lost could formulate ideas that could maximize pleasure for society.

Benjamin Constant Edit

One of the first thinkers to go by the name of "liberal", Constant looked to Britain rather than to ancient Rome for a practical model of freedom in a large, commercial society. He drew a distinction between the "Liberty of the Ancients" and the "Liberty of the Moderns". The Liberty of the Ancients was participatory republican liberty, which gave the citizens the right to directly influence politics through debates and votes in the public assembly. In order to support this degree of participation, citizenship was a burdensome moral obligation requiring a considerable investment of time and energy. Generally, this required a sub-society of slaves to do much of the productive work, leaving the citizens free to deliberate on public affairs. Ancient Liberty was also limited to relatively small and homogenous societies, in which the people could be conveniently gathered together in one place to transact public affairs.

The Liberty of the Moderns, in contrast, was based on the possession of civil liberties, the rule of law, and freedom from excessive state interference. Direct participation would be limited: a necessary consequence of the size of modern states, and also the inevitable result of having created a commercial society in which there are no slaves but almost everybody must earn a living through work. Instead, the voters would elect representatives, who would deliberate in Parliament on behalf of the people and would save citizens from the necessity of daily political involvement.

Moreover, Constant believed that, in the modern world, commerce was superior to war. He attacked Napoleon's martial appetite, on the grounds that it was illiberal and no longer suited to modern commercial social organization. Ancient Liberty tended to be warlike, whereas a state organized on the principles of Modern Liberty would be at peace with all peaceful nations.

Thomas Hobbes Edit

The main practical conclusion of Hobbes' political theory is that state or society can not be secure unless at the disposal of an absolute sovereign. From this follows the view that no individual can hold rights of property against the sovereign, and that the sovereign may therefore take the goods of its subjects without their consent.

In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and legitimate governments and creating an objective science of morality. [ citation needed ] Much of the book is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war.

Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and their passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This, Hobbes argues, would lead to a "war of all against all".

Jean-Jacques Rousseau Edit

The Social Contract outlines the basis for a legitimate political order within a framework of classical republicanism. Published in 1762, it became one of the most influential works of political philosophy in the Western tradition. It developed some of the ideas mentioned in earlier work, the article Économie Politique (Discourse on Political Economy), featured in Diderot's Encyclopédie. The treatise begins with the dramatic opening lines, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they."

Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. As society developed, the division of labor and private property required the human race to adopt institutions of law. In the degenerate phase of society, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men while also becoming increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom.

Industrialization and the Modern Era Edit

The Marxist critique of capitalism—developed with Friedrich Engels—was, alongside liberalism and fascism, one of the defining ideological movements of the twentieth century. The industrial revolution produced a parallel revolution in political thought. Urbanization and capitalism greatly reshaped society. During this same period, the socialist movement began to form. In the mid-19th century, Marxism was developed, and socialism in general gained increasing popular support, mostly from the urban working class. Without breaking entirely from the past, Marx established principles that would be used by future revolutionaries of the 20th century namely Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel Castro. Though Hegel's philosophy of history is similar to Immanuel Kant's, and Karl Marx's theory of revolution towards the common good is partly based on Kant's view of history—Marx declared that he was turning Hegel's dialectic, which was "standing on its head", "the right side up again". [29] Unlike Marx who believed in historical materialism, Hegel believed in the Phenomenology of Spirit. [30] By the late 19th century, socialism and trade unions were established members of the political landscape. In addition, the various branches of anarchism, with thinkers such as Mikhail Bakunin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon or Peter Kropotkin, and syndicalism also gained some prominence. In the Anglo-American world, anti-imperialism and pluralism began gaining currency at the turn of the 20th century. [ citation needed ]

World War I was a watershed event in human history, changing views of governments and politics. The Russian Revolution of 1917 (and similar, albeit less successful, revolutions in many other European countries) brought communism—and in particular the political theory of Leninism, but also on a smaller level Luxemburgism (gradually)—on the world stage. At the same time, social democratic parties won elections and formed governments for the first time, often as a result of the introduction of universal suffrage. [31]

From the end of World War II until 1971, when John Rawls published A Theory of Justice, political philosophy declined in the Anglo-American academic world, as analytic philosophers expressed skepticism about the possibility that normative judgments had cognitive content, and political science turned toward statistical methods and behavioralism. In continental Europe, on the other hand, the postwar decades saw a huge blossoming of political philosophy, with Marxism dominating the field. This was the time of Jean-Paul Sartre and Louis Althusser, and the victories of Mao Zedong in China and Fidel Castro in Cuba, as well as the events of May 1968, led to increased interest in revolutionary ideology, especially by the New Left. A number of continental European émigrés to Britain and the United States—including Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, Isaiah Berlin, Eric Voegelin and Judith Shklar—encouraged continued study in political philosophy in the Anglo-American world, but in the 1950s and 1960s, they and their students remained at odds with the analytic establishment.

Communism remained an important focus especially during the 1950s and 1960s. Colonialism and racism were important issues that arose. In general, there was a marked trend towards a pragmatic approach to political issues, rather than a philosophical one. Much academic debate regarded one or both of two pragmatic topics: how (or whether) to apply utilitarianism to problems of political policy, or how (or whether) to apply economic models (such as rational choice theory) to political issues. The rise of feminism, LGBT social movements and the end of colonial rule and of the political exclusion of such minorities as African Americans and sexual minorities in the developed world has led to feminist, postcolonial, and multicultural thought becoming significant. This led to a challenge to the social contract by philosophers Charles W. Mills in his book The Racial Contract and Carole Pateman in her book The Sexual Contract that the social contract excluded persons of colour and women respectively.

In Anglo-American academic political philosophy, the publication of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice in 1971 is considered a milestone. Rawls used a thought experiment, the original position, in which representative parties choose principles of justice for the basic structure of society from behind a veil of ignorance. Rawls also offered a criticism of utilitarian approaches to questions of political justice. Robert Nozick's 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which won a National Book Award, responded to Rawls from a libertarian perspective and gained academic respectability for libertarian viewpoints. [32]

Contemporaneously with the rise of analytic ethics in Anglo-American thought, in Europe, several new lines of philosophy directed at the critique of existing societies arose between the 1950s and 1980s. Most of these took elements of Marxist economic analysis but combined them with a more cultural or ideological emphasis. Out of the Frankfurt School, thinkers like Herbert Marcuse, Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Jürgen Habermas combined Marxian and Freudian perspectives. Along somewhat different lines, a number of other continental thinkers—still largely influenced by Marxism—put new emphases on structuralism and on a "return to Hegel". Within the (post-) structuralist line (though mostly not taking that label) are thinkers such as Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, Claude Lefort, and Jean Baudrillard. The Situationists were more influenced by Hegel Guy Debord, in particular, moved a Marxist analysis of commodity fetishism to the realm of consumption, and looked at the relation between consumerism and dominant ideology formation.

Another debate developed around the (distinct) criticisms of liberal political theory made by Michael Walzer, Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor. The liberal-communitarian debate is often considered valuable for generating a new set of philosophical problems, rather than a profound and illuminating clash of perspective. These and other communitarians (such as Alasdair MacIntyre and Daniel A. Bell) argue that, contra liberalism, communities are prior to individuals and therefore should be the center of political focus. Communitarians tend to support greater local control as well as economic and social policies which encourage the growth of social capital.

A prominent subject in recent political philosophy is the theory of deliberative democracy. The seminal work was done by Jurgen Habermas in Germany, but the most extensive literature has been in English, led by theorists such as Jane Mansbridge, Joshua Cohen, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. [33]

A pair of overlapping political perspectives arising toward the end of the 20th century are republicanism (or neo- or civic-republicanism) and the capability approach. The resurgent republican movement aims to provide an alternate definition of liberty from Isaiah Berlin's positive and negative forms of liberty, namely "liberty as non-domination." Unlike the American liberal movement which understands liberty as "non-interference," "non-domination" entails individuals not being subject to the arbitrary will of any other person. To a republican the mere status as a slave, regardless of how that slave is treated, is objectionable. Prominent republicans include historian Quentin Skinner, jurist Cass Sunstein, and political philosopher Philip Pettit. The capability approach, pioneered by economists Mahbub ul Haq and Amartya Sen and further developed by legal scholar Martha Nussbaum, understands freedom under allied lines: the real-world ability to act. Both the capability approach and republicanism treat choice as something which must be resourced. In other words, it is not enough to be legally able to do something, but to have the real option of doing it.

Another important strand of contemporary political theory in North America draws on thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Gilles Deleuze, among others, to develop critiques and articulate alternatives to the sufficiency of the liberal-communitarian debate and republicanism discourse. Since the 1990s, these political theorists, broadly engaging the "genealogical approach", "deconstruction", and "weak ontology", have expanded the scope of political theory and issued a variety of arguments on topics such as pluralism, agonism, gender performativity, secularism, [34] [35] and more recently the Anthropocene [36] and the non-human turn. [37] The works of Judith Butler, William E. Connolly, Wendy Brown, Jane Bennett, and Bonnie Honig have been highly pertinent in this regard.

A larger list of political philosophers is intended to be closer to exhaustive. Listed below are some of the most canonical or important thinkers, and especially philosophers whose central focus was in political philosophy and/or who are good representatives of a particular school of thought.

Another Philosophy of History and Selected Political Writings

Herder, Johann Gottfried. Another Philosophy of History and Selected Political Writings. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2004.

The English title is misleading. One expects that this will be another volume along the same lines as Hegel or Augustine. It is not. The German title, Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte zur Bildung der Menscheit, clearly teaches us this is about education, not history. Even more, as the use of his term Bildung makes clear, it is about formative education.

Herder resists the E Herder, Johann Gottfried. Another Philosophy of History and Selected Political Writings. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2004.

The English title is misleading. One expects that this will be another volume along the same lines as Hegel or Augustine. It is not. The German title, Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte zur Bildung der Menscheit, clearly teaches us this is about education, not history. Even more, as the use of his term Bildung makes clear, it is about formative education.

Herder resists the Enlightenment attempt to judge all cultures from the standpoint of French atheism. Moreover, one should not wish to go back in time and live in x culture, for “God, climate, and [the] stage of world development” made you what you are, where you are.

Every nation and culture has “its center of gravity” (Herder 29).

Herder operates with a number of German terms that lose some of their nuance in English. The most important is Bildung. It isn’t simply education, but formation.

Herder begins history with the Oriental patriarchs. By Orient he probably means Mesopotamia and Abraham, not China or Japan. It’s necessary that history begin with the patriarchs. Mankind needed to be formed (Bild- words) in a way that would be a scaffold for later epochs. Mankind didn’t need the dry, cold reason of the French Enlightenment, but custom and inclination. Similarly, children do not need to begin with abstract reasoning but with stories of heroism.

Human history then moves from patriarchal huts to Egypt. The emphasis is no longer “the paternal oracles of the deity,” but law and security (Herder 12). Man needed stability before he could move to the Greek genius. History then moves to Phoenicia. Instead of a god-king, there is not an aristocracy of cities and commerce.

Then is Greece. The Greeks blended Phoenecian and Egyptian ways of thinking. The aristocracy of cities became polises. Greek art was light compared with Egyptian heaviness. “The giant temple became a stage” (20).

Rome follows Greece, as manhood does boyhood. Rome was also necessary in order to bridge Greece and Germany. Greek airiness lacked the manly spirit to tame the barbarians. Only Rome (and the Gospel) could do that. This gives rise to another of Herder’s arguments: each culture is an analogy of the one preceding it (39).

It is tempting to read Herder as one who wants to go back to Medieval Germany. He doesn’t say that. He is very clear on that point. Nonetheless, given the current Christian fascination with “classical education” and “classical cultures,” prioritizing Medieval Germany over pagan Greece might have something going for it.

Much of the middle ages was no doubt brutal, but consider what happened: instead of slavery, there were guilds (at least in the later centuries) Europe populated self-reliance, etc.

All of this is excellent and good, but Herder is making a dangerous argument. He comes very close to saying we can’t judge another culture from our standpoint. What about cultural practices such as widow-burning in India and female circumcision in Africa? We most certainly can judge (and stop, as the manly British did in India) those cultures.

He then deconstructs terms like “happiness.” Happiness can’t simply be what French philosophes think it must be (with the conclusion that no nation was ever happy until 1789).

There are a number of modern-day applications we can make from Herder’s argument. Trying to import American (and really, just neo-liberal democracy) to other cultures is always doomed from the start. True, much of Iraqi and Afghani culture is bad, but destroying those mediating institutions, leaving nothing remaining, and then telling them to be good Western citizens is almost always worse. You get ISIS as a result.

This text ends with several of Herder’s essays on the topic. This question would get him brought up on charges by Big Eva today. That’s because modern Americans, both secularists and Evangelicals, are utterly clueless on what nationalism means. A Fatherland is a nexus of numerous influences: soil, family, language. These are manifested in its institutions (which is why the godly must always fight efforts from the UN which threaten our institutions).

Ultimately, though, a Fatherland is revealed by its language. Note what Herder didn’t say. He didn’t say race. And for neo-liberals and neo-conservatives, he didn’t say oil or global markets.

This is a fun, bombastic work. Herder is certainly wrong in some of the particulars, but it is still a fun read.
. more

Liberty before Liberalism

This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).

Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation

Page generated Mon Jun 28 02:56:03 2021 on philpapers-web-b76fb567b-rs8fp Debug information

cache stats: hit=18609, miss=18603, save=
autohandler : 253 ms
called component : 233 ms
entry : 233 ms
entry_basics : 90 ms
citations-citations : 82 ms
entry-header : 77 ms
menu : 74 ms
entry_stats : 23 ms
get_entry : 12 ms
entry-side : 4 ms
entry-links : 3 ms
entry_stats_query : 3 ms
similar_entries : 3 ms
citations-references : 2 ms
prepCit : 2 ms
entry_chapters : 2 ms
writeLog : 1 ms
entry-cats : 1 ms
init renderer : 0 ms
retrieve cache object : 0 ms
save cache object : 0 ms
setup : 0 ms
entry-profiles : 0 ms
auth : 0 ms
stat_db : 0 ms
entry-buttons : 0 ms

John Lachs

His philosophical interests center on human natures. This takes him into metaphysics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, and ethics. He has continuing research interests in American philosophy and in German Idealism, along with research and teaching interests in medical and business ethics.

John Lachs was general editor of Encyclopedia of American Philosophy (Taylor & Francis). A 2001 issue of The Journal of Speculative Philosophy was devoted to his essay "Both Better Off and Better: Moral Progress Amid Continuing Carnage," with responses from a half dozen philosophers.

He was also chair of the American Philosophical Association's Centennial Committee, charged with celebrating the personal value and social usefulness of philosophy. Radio programs, book signings, and coffee house conversations were designed to bring philosophy closer to the concerns of ordinary people.

John Lachs has completed the second part of his book Intermediate Man, which is entitled The Cost of Comfort. The Practical Philosophy of John Lachs, 19 essays critical of his work and 19 responses by him, will appear in 2018.


American, Metaphysics, Ethics, German Idealism, Human Natures, Bioethics

Representative publications


    . 2014, Indiana University Press. . 2014, Fordham University Press. . 2012, Indiana University Press. , co-authored with Michael P. Hodges. 2011, Vanderbilt University Press. . 2003, Routledge. . 1998, Vanderbilt University Press. . 1995, Vanderbilt University Press. . 1987, Vanderbilt University Press. . 1981, Hackett Publishing Co.


  • "Subjective Worlds." 2013. The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 64:4, iss. 264, pp. 809-21.
  • "Good Enough." 2009. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1-7.
  • "Animal Faith and Ontology." 2009. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 484-90.
  • "The Lessons of History." 2007. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 390-4.
  • "Stoic Pragmatism." 2005. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 95-106.
  • "The Difference God Makes." 2004, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 28, iss. 1, pp. 183-94.
  • "Leaving Others Alone." 2004. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 261-72.
  • "Is Aging a Disease?" 2004. HEC Forum, vol. 16, iss. 3, pp. 173-81.
  • "The Past, the Future, and the Immediate." 2003. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 151-62.
  • "The Insignificance of Individuals." 2002. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, vol. 38, no. 1/2, pp. 79-93.
  • "Both Better Off and Better: Moral Progress amid Continuing Carnage." 2001. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 173-83. This issue is dedicated to this essay. It has responses by Cynthia Willett, Dennis J. Schmidt, Andrew Light, and Nikita Pokrovsky.
  • "Transcendence in Philosophy and Everyday Life." 1997. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 247-55.
  • "When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok." 1994, Journal of Clinical Ethics, vol. 5, iss. 1, pp. 10-13. Reprinted in: Bioethics: An Anthology, ed. Helga Kuhse, Udo Schueklenk, and Peter Singer.
  • "Moral Truth or Empirical Truth about Morality?" 1994. Bulletin of the Santayana Society, vol. 12, pp. 13-6. ." 1991. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 29, iss. 3, pp. 329-39.
  • "Human Natures." 1990, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 29-39.
  • "How Relative are Values? Or Are the Nazis Irrational and Why the Answer Matters." 1990. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 28, iss. 3, pp. 319-28.
  • "Persons and Technology." 1985. The Personalist Forum, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5-21.
  • "Belief, Confidence, and Faith." 1972. Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 10, iss. 2, pp. 227-85.
  • "The Proofs of Realism." 1967. The Monist, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 284-304.
  • "Angel, Animal, Machine: Models for Man." 1967. Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 5, iss. 4.
  • "Self-Identity without a Self." 1965. The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 548-65.
  • "Experience." 1965. Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 3, iss. 1., pp. 10-17.
  • "Santayana's Philosophy of Mind." 1964. The Monist, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 419-40.
  • "Santayana's Moral Philosophy." 1964. The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 44-61.
  • "The Impotent Mind." 1963. The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 187-99.

Contact Information

phone: (615) 343-0321
113 Furman Hall


Ph.D., Yale University
B.A., M.A., McGill University

© Vanderbilt University · All rights reserved. Site Development: Digital Strategies (Division of Communications)
Vanderbilt University is committed to principles of equal opportunity and affirmative action. Accessibility information.
Vanderbilt®, Vanderbilt University®, V Oak Leaf Design®, Star V Design® and Anchor Down® are trademarks of The Vanderbilt University

The Politics of Acts 10:44-48

In our text today Peter embraces the Gentiles as fellow Christians after he observes them being filled with the Holy Spirit. Earlier Peter had received a vision in which he was commanded to eat things that he considered unclean. Perplexed by the vision, Peter realized its meaning after he was led by the Lord to the house of Cornelius, a Gentile who believed in God. Peter never would have gone inside Cornelius’ home since Jews did not visit with Gentiles, nor enter into their homes. Because of his vision, however, he realized that God was doing a new thing, and he received the Gentiles into the household of faith as brethren….

This article is part of the series, The Politics of Scripture. While the focus of the series is on weekly preaching texts, we welcome commentary on sacred, classic, and profane literature, film, and artistic expression. Submissions may be sent to [email protected]

In our text today Peter embraces the Gentiles as fellow Christians after he observes them being filled with the Holy Spirit. Earlier Peter had received a vision in which he was commanded to eat things that he considered unclean. Perplexed by the vision, Peter realized its meaning after he was led by the Lord to the house of Cornelius, a Gentile who believed in God. Peter never would have gone inside Cornelius’ home since Jews did not visit with Gentiles, nor enter into their homes. Because of his vision, however, he realized that God was doing a new thing, and he received the Gentiles into the household of faith as brethren.

Sadly, many churches still are estranged from people that they consider “unclean.” While much is made of multiculturalism and racial diversity, the problem of classcism within churches—the discrimination against the lower class at the expense of the upper and middle class—continues to plague American congregations of all cultures. In American society, a society that exalts wealth and individuality above almost all else, the poor and indigent are frowned upon for bad choices and an inconsistent work ethic. Although sociological data may say otherwise, many feel that the poor are to blame for their own condition. Even if others do not blame the poor for their compromised economic position, they seldom desire to be in relationship with the underclass, preferring instead to approach them from a distance through food programs, clothing drives, and other subsidies that keep the barriers between the classes intact. Perhaps the greatest offenders may be the attendees of megachurches who comprise a middle and upper class constituency that exalts wealth, charisma, and success over undesirable traits such as poverty, physical or mental disability, and old age.

While there are several different types of megachurches, the contemporary megachurch is the institution most commonly associated with extensive religious broadcasting, faith based, or prosperity gospel religious teaching, and the iconic celebrity status of their pastors. One of their most distinctive characteristics is that these congregations lionize their pastors as emblems of health, wealth, and charisma, and members identify themselves with the success, fame, and status of their particular pastor. So what becomes of the impoverished members of a congregation? Who has an affinity for them?

In reflecting on the common good of human communities, Alasdair MacIntyre asks, “what difference to moral philosophy would it make, if we were to treat the facts of vulnerability and affliction and the related facts of dependence as central to the human condition?” To extend the scope of MacIntyre’s question, I further add, what difference would it make to our conceptions of and attempts to secure the church’s common good if the church community was to treat vulnerability, poverty, and affliction in this way?

What is needed if we are to be present to the very poor? Beyond food programs, shelters, and clothing drives, members of the community have to learn to enter into meaningful relationships with the poor. This requires what Aquinas calls misericordia, the virtue of taking pity. However, in English, pity is associated with condescension, which does not do this term justice. Rather, the term refers to grief or sorrow over someone else’s distress just insofar as one understands the other’s distress as one’s own. Misericordia is what reorders our desires to meet the needs of the poor for the sake of their need alone, and not because we are engaged in some interminable form of imitation. Misericordia is like the compassion of Jesus, which does not simply heal and restore, but is bodily present in its healing and restoration.

Insofar as many megachurch members do not have intimate and meaningful relationships with other church members, let alone the poor and indigent, expecting the vast majority of these church attendees to develop the virtues of presence and misericordia seems extremely utopian. However, foregrounding this issue accedes to Hauerwas’ proclamation that, “Theology and theologians do little to make the world better. Rather, our craft involves the slow and painful steps of trying to understand better what it means to be a people formed by the story of God.” Hopefully, focusing our attention on the poor will remind us of the dimensions of Christian life which have been hidden by our culture’s preference for such things as power, strength, and intellectual prowess. If the acquisitive desire fostered by capitalism and expressed within the parameters of the megachurch experience is to be reclaimed, it must first be reordered away from our personal desires, and it must be redirected toward others who are destitute and very poor, which realizes the common good. In this way, we can truly experience the joy and unity of Pentecost.

The Debate Over Multiculturalism: Philosophy, Politics, and Policy

Editor's Note: The note below Figure 1 has been adjusted to clarify that the absence of a bar for a particular year indicates a score of zero on the multiculturalism policy index for the country that year. We regret the initial error.

The murderous rampage by right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik in Norway in July, which was fueled by Breivik's hatred of Islam and fierce opposition to multiculturalism, focused the world's attention on the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment and extremist politics in northern Europe.

The claim that multiculturalism undermines social cohesion and local cultural values has fueled the political success of far-right groups such as Geert Wilders's Freedom Party in the Netherlands, the Sweden Democrats Party, the True Finns Party in Finland, the Danish People's Party, and the Progress Party in Norway.

Yet concerns over multiculturalism are also part of the political mainstream. In October 2010, German Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed that a multicultural approach had "utterly failed" in Germany. In February 2011, French President Nicolas Sarkozy also called multiculturalism a failure, and British Prime Minister David Cameron indicted his country's policy of multiculturalism for failing to promote a sense of common identity and encouraging Muslim segregation and radicalization.

The debate surrounding multiculturalism is likely to continue. But what is multiculturalism really, and what do social scientists know about its effects on social cohesion and immigrant integration?

If the purportedly divisive effects of multiculturalism are borne out by empirical evidence, they provide support for calls to reduce immigrant flows or to differentially select new migrants, and for the creation of more aggressive assimilation policies and programs in destination countries.

If such effects are unsubstantiated, however, the rhetoric against multiculturalism might reflect the scapegoating of minority cultures faulted for problems rooted in others causes, such as economic globalization or discriminatory treatment.

The Many Faces of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism can refer to a demographic fact, a particular set of philosophical ideas, or a specific orientation by government or institutions toward a diverse population. Much of the contemporary debate over the value of multiculturalism centers on whether public multiculturalism — that which finds expression in concrete policies, laws, and regulations — is the appropriate way to deal with diversity and immigrant integration.

Conceptual differences over the meaning of multiculturalism often lead to confusion and outright misunderstanding when people debate its challenges and benefits.

Demographic Multiculturalism

For some people, the term "multiculturalism" is descriptive: It reflects the actual pluralism present in society. Such pluralism might stem from the coexistence of longstanding minority groups, such as the distinct linguistic communities within Belgium, Canada, and Switzerland, or it might be due to the migration of people with different cultures, religions, languages, and origins, as is the case in many countries around the world. In this sense, the United States and France are multicultural countries, as are Singapore and Kuwait.

Most of the contemporary debate about multiculturalism centers on immigrants and their descendants rather than on longstanding minority groups. Indeed, in some arenas multiculturalism has become synonymous with the demographic and social changes that stem from migration, resulting in the conflation of multiculturalism with immigration policy. This is sometimes seen in debates about whether multiculturalism as a demographic fact undermines social capital and social cohesion. When the term multiculturalism is evoked in these debates, it usually refers to population diversity, not a particular philosophy or public policy.

Multiculturalism as Political Philosophy

Typically, however, multiculturalism means more than demographic pluralism. It can also be a philosophy centered on recognizing, accommodating, and supporting cultural pluralism. The philosophy of multiculturalism is a general orientation than can be held by people, institutions, and governments, but it also refers to a particular set of philosophical ideas advanced by political theorists. The ideas of these theorists have been consequential since many have taken an active role in public debates.

To understand multiculturalism as a political philosophy, consider the British prime minister's appeal to "muscular" liberalism in February 2011. In his speech, Cameron called in part on a vision of classical Western liberalism predicated on universalism and individual equality. Under classical liberalism, all people must be treated the same, and governments should remain blind to particularities of ethnicity, religion, or national origin. They should not, for example, provide public funding for cultural minority groups. Such a stance has long been associated with the French Republican approach to diversity.

The multicultural critique of this position argues that cultural neutrality in public institutions is impossible. Since democracy is based on government by the majority, minorities face disadvantages in the public sphere despite laws guaranteeing certain rights and freedoms. For example, even if a country does not declare an official language, the public school system will be run in just one or (at most) a few languages. Immigrants who don't speak that language are thus placed in an inherently more difficult situation than the majority group.

Others add that the assumption of individualism is also problematic. Political philosophers such as Charles Taylor and Bhikhu Parekh argue that all humans are born into particular social and cultural communities that provide meaning and identity. Such groups are consequential to people's lives people are not just atomized individuals free from social ties and cultural moorings. Choosing which pair of shoes to wear, for example, probably does not carry the same weight for a Muslim woman as choosing whether or not to wear a burqa or a headscarf.

Multicultural thinkers argue that social equality is enhanced when governments explicitly recognize cultural minorities, valorize pluralism, and accommodate the cultural needs of groups. In this way, if a legislature mandates store closings one day a week to give workers a day of rest, businesspeople of different religious faiths should be able to choose the day they close rather than having a Sunday closing — rooted in Christian traditions — imposed upon them.

The relevance of philosophical multiculturalism reaches beyond academia. Charles Taylor served as co-chair on the Quebec government's Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences in 2007, while Bhikhu Parekh headed the Runnymede Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain from 1998 to 2000. Both commissions produced highly publicized and contentious reports.

Multiculturalism as Public Policy

Multiculturalism as a philosophical orientation recognizes de facto pluralism in a society, and celebrates that diversity. It also requires governments and institutions to encourage pluralism through public policy, though the precise way this is done can vary across places and time.

For example, schools might require teachers to adopt a more diverse set of literary texts or highlight the contributions of ethnoracial, cultural, or religious minorities in history classes. In other cases, multicultural policies might make accommodations for the particular cultural or religious practices of minorities — such as providing a prayer room or allowing a particular style of dress on school grounds — or they might provide public funding for separate schools for racial, ethnic, or religious minorities.

In some places, public policies around cultural recognition and group accommodation preceded the large-scale international migration of the last four decades. This is the case particularly in countries that were dealing with domestic conflicts involving longstanding ethnic, racial, and religious minorities.

In the United States, for instance, U.S.-born African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans made concerted calls for cultural recognition within schools and colleges starting in the 1960s. In Canada, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau announced a federal policy of multiculturalism in a 1971 speech, committing the government to supporting minority communities given that "National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one's own individual identity." Rather than antithetical to integration, the Canadian policy was to be embedded in official French-English bilingualism and integration through intercultural exchange.

Governments in Australia, Sweden, and the Netherlands also adopted policies of multiculturalism in the 1970s and 1980s other countries followed these early adopters.

Social scientists have only recently begun to evaluate multiculturalism as public policy. Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka of Queen's University in Ontario, Canada, have constructed a multiculturalism policy index (MCP Index) that measures the extent to which eight types of policies appear in 21 Western nations. The index accounts for the presence or absence of multicultural policies across these countries at three distinct points — 1980, 2000, and 2010 — thus capturing policy changes over time (see Figure 1).

The countries were each evaluated for an official affirmation of multiculturalism multiculturalism in the school curriculum inclusion of ethnic representation/sensitivity in public media and licensing exemptions from dress codes in public laws acceptance of dual citizenship funding of ethnic organizations to support cultural activities funding of bilingual and mother-tongue instruction and affirmative action for immigrant groups.

This typology is similar to those of scholars who use alternative measures, such as that created by Ruud Koopmans and colleagues in 2005 or constructed by the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX).

The evidence from these indices indicates that, despite Chancellor Merkel's reproach of multiculturalism, Germany is not a country of strong multicultural policies. In fact, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland are among the least multicultural of all countries measured, though Germany has adopted more multicultural policies over time. Belgium, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States all rank as moderate multicultural countries, while Canada and Australia rank highest as having adopted the broadest range of multicultural policies.

In many of the countries analyzed, we find an increase in the number of multicultural policies over time – a perhaps surprising development given current political rhetoric. Sweden's multicultural policies in 1980 and 2000 could be categorized as modest, for instance, but by 2010 they were widespread and strong. Spain and Portugal, countries with very little international migration in 1980 and correspondingly weak multicultural policies, had moved to a moderate level of multicultural policy development by 2010.

This suggests that actual policy in many countries is slowly inching toward greater accommodation of pluralism, despite the political rhetoric around the perceived problems of diversity. Of course, policy developments are a moving target. While the general trend is toward a greater range of multicultural policies in most Western countries, some nations, like the United States, have experienced no appreciable change in national multiculturalism.

The Netherlands and Italy both had lower scores on the MCP Index in 2010 than in 2000. It is unclear at this time, however, whether this represents the beginning of a downward trend for multicultural policy, or whether it is anomalous.

Multiculturalism, Social Cohesion, and Immigrant Integration

How much do ideologies and policies of multiculturalism matter? Does the promotion of pluralism and diversity conflict with social cohesion and immigrant integration, or is multiculturalism a pathway to incorporation?

The arguments advanced by multicultural theorists suggest that by recognizing and accommodating minority cultures, members of those communities will feel increased attachment to and engagement in the larger polity. Critics retort that excessive emphasis on diversity reifies differences, undermines a cohesive collective identity, and hinders common political projects — from backing the armed forces to supporting social benefits and redistribution. Detractors also worry that promoting multiculturalism leaves minorities living "parallel lives" in segregated communities, retarding majority-language learning, hindering economic integration, and weakening social ties and, thus, social capital with those outside the ethnic enclave.

Empirical research on these questions has been limited, and evidence on the socioeconomic consequences of multiculturalism is mixed. Some scholars argue that facilitating ethnic closure — a presumed consequence of multicultural policies — prevents or discourages immigrants from competing in the broader labor market, leading to higher unemployment and welfare use. Others argue instead that it is precisely the retention of ethnic social capital and culture that facilitates the educational success of immigrant children and the native-born second generation.

The reality might lie between these two positions, as the mechanisms tying multiculturalism to outcomes like employment or educational attainment are not clear. Labor market policies, educational institutions, and welfare state structures likely influence economic integration much more than policies of multiculturalism.

The consequences of multiculturalism for immigrants' civic and political integration are somewhat stronger. Immigrants living in countries that adopt multicultural policies are more likely to engage in nonviolent political activities directed at their country of residence rather than their homeland, more likely to report trust in government, less likely to report discrimination based on their group membership, and more likely to become citizens.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 89 percent of working age (15 to 64) immigrants who had been living in multicultural Canada for at least ten years had adopted Canadian citizenship by 2007 — a large share compared to the citizenship acquisition of the same population of immigrants in countries with few multicultural policies. By 2007, only 57 percent of such immigrants in Denmark took on Danish citizenship, 47 percent in France became French citizens, and 37 percent in Germany adopted German citizenship. To the extent that taking on citizenship is an indicator of civic incorporation and a facilitator of further integration, either in politics or through access to certain jobs, we find greater integration in countries with more developed multicultural policies.

What about members of the majority group, however? Do multicultural policies increase their sense of social inclusion or political cohesion with immigrant-origin minorities? Even if multiculturalism increases immigrants' civic attachment and sense of inclusion, the negative perception of multiculturalism by certain politicians and right-wing parties in various European countries suggests that some people are very alarmed about diversity.

Revealingly, in seven of nine studies tracking anti-immigrant attitudes over time, researchers found stable or increasingly negative attitudes toward immigrants, especially in Western Europe, while only two studies reported more positive trends.

The distinction between the various meanings of multiculturalism becomes important in thinking about the potentially different responses of majority and minority populations to diversity in society and how the government deals with that diversity. Some of the backlash against multiculturalism by majority residents stems from frustration over the perceived accommodation of diversity in public policy and institutions. But much of this opposition reflects concern over demographic multiculturalism, namely the increasing pluralism in Western societies brought about by immigration. Thus, even politicians in countries with few multicultural policies stand opposed to the idea of multiculturalism.

Do multicultural policies ameliorate the potential negative reactions by majority group members to increased demographic multiculturalism, or do such policies exacerbate them? Very few research studies examine this question with hard data. One study of 19 Western nations found that, in societies experiencing immigration, multicultural policies appear to mitigate or reverse the erosion of trust or political participation that can occur in situations of demographic change. In contrast, another study found that residents of countries with more multicultural policies might have moved to more exclusionary notions of national identity over the last ten years.

These findings raise difficult questions for academics and policymakers over how to weigh majority preferences against minority interests. The majority population might express declining or limited support for policies of minority recognition and accommodation – an attitude that some politicians articulate and encourage. Yet the evidence suggests that multiculturalism probably facilitates immigrants' sociopolitical integration and contributes to their sense of civic inclusion.

It is possible that, in the medium to long term, accommodating minorities through multicultural policies will also benefit majority residents. If minority integration is facilitated, greater civic and political cohesion might follow and prevent the negative consequences that can flow from marginalization and feelings of exclusion among minority residents. Given the tenor of the current debate and the political climate in some countries, however, the maintenance and expansion of multicultural policies could be in jeopardy.

Sources and Further Reading

Banting, K., Johnston, R., Kymlicka, W., & Soroka, S., 2006. Do Multiculturalism Policies Erode the Welfare State? In Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies, eds. K. Banting and W. Kymlicka. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barry, B., 2002. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bloemraad, I., 2006. Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bloemraad, I. 2011. “We the People” in an Age of Migration: Multiculturalism and Immigrants’ Political Integration in Comparative Perspective. In Citizenship, Borders and Human Needs, ed. Rogers Smith. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Ceobanu, Alin M. and Xavier Escandell. 2010. Comparative Analyses of Public Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Using Multinational Survey Data: A Review of Theories and Research. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 309-328.

Joppke, C. 2004. The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy. British Journal of Sociology 55(2): 237-257.

Kesler, C., & Bloemraad, I. 2010. Does Immigration Erode Social Capital? The Conditional Effects of Immigration-Generated Diversity on Trust, Membership, and Participation across 19 Countries, 1981-2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science 43(2): 319-347.

Koopmans, R. 2010. Trade-Offs between Equality and Difference: Immigrant Integration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State in Cross-National Perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(1): 1-26.

Koopmans, R., Statham, P., Giugni, M., & Passy, F. 2005. Contested Citizenship: Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Kymlicka, W. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kymlicka, W. 2010. “Testing the Liberal Multiculturalist Hypothesis: Normative Theories and Social Science Evidence,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 43(2): 257-271.

Migrant Integration Policy Index. Available Online.

Miller, D. 1995. On Nationality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Multiculturalism Policies Index. Available Online.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2010. Naturalisation: A Passport for the Better Integration of Immigrants? Report of conference proceedings. OECD Publications. Available Online.

Parekh, B.C. 2006. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. New York: Palgrave.

Plaut, V.C., Garnett, F.G., Buffardi, L.E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. 2011. “What About Me?” Perceptions of Exclusion and Whites’ Reactions to Multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(2): 337-353.

Portes, A., & Zhou, M., 1993. The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74-96.

Taylor, C., 1992. Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Vertovec, S. & Wessendorf, S., eds. 2010. The Multicultural Backlash: European discourses, policies and practices. New York: Routledge.

Wright, M., 2011. Policy Regimes and Normative Conceptions of Nationalism in Mass Public Opinion. Comparative Political Studies 44(5): 598-624.

List of political ideologies

In social studies, a political ideology is a certain set of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class or large group that explains how society should work and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. Some political parties follow a certain ideology very closely while others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them. The popularity of an ideology is in part due to the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their own interests. Political ideologies have two dimensions: (1) goals: how society should be organized and (2) methods: the most appropriate way to achieve this goal.

An ideology is a collection of ideas. Typically, each ideology contains certain ideas on what it considers to be the best form of government (e.g. autocracy or democracy) and the best economic system (e.g. capitalism or socialism). The same word is sometimes used to identify both an ideology and one of its main ideas. For instance, socialism may refer to an economic system, or it may refer to an ideology which supports that economic system. The same term may also be used to refer to multiple ideologies and that is why political scientists try to find consensus definitions for these terms. While the terms have been conflated at times, communism has come in common parlance and in academics to refer to Soviet-type regimes and Marxist–Leninist(Marxism) ideologies whereas socialism has come to refer to a wider range of differing ideologies which are distinct from Marxism–Leninism. [1]

Political ideology is a term fraught with problems, having been called "the most elusive concept in the whole of social science". [2] While ideologies tend to identify themselves by their position on the political spectrum (such as the left, the centre or the right), they can be distinguished from political strategies (e.g. populism as it is commonly defined) and from single issues around which a party may be built (e.g. civil libertarianism and support or opposition to European integration), although either of these may or may not be central to a particular ideology. There are several studies that show that political ideology is heritable within families. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

The following list is strictly alphabetical and attempts to divide the ideologies found in practical political life into a number of groups, with each group containing ideologies that are related to each other. The headers refer to names of the best-known ideologies in each group. The names of the headers do not necessarily imply some hierarchical order or that one ideology evolved out of the other. Instead, they are merely noting that the ideologies in question are practically, historically and ideologically related to each other. As such, one ideology can belong to several groups and there is sometimes considerable overlap between related ideologies. The meaning of a political label can also differ between countries and political parties often subscribe to a combination of ideologies.


This bibliography focuses on political philosophy rather than the entire corpus of an author&rsquos work, and gives only an overview of some important sources for this vast field. Fuller bibliographies for most of the works and authors discussed can be found in the related articles listed below.

Primary Literature

The Oxford Classical Text series has been used for citation of most classical texts. Other editions of reference for many texts include the series published respectively by Teubner in Germany and by Budé in France. Abbreviations are used for the following texts and translations: DK: For the Presocratics: Diels, H., and W. Kranz (eds.), 1951&ndash2, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, griechisch und deutsch, 6th edn, 3 vols., Berlin: Weidmann. SVF: For the Stoics: von Arnim, Hans von, 1903&ndash21, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 vols., Leipzig: B.G. Teubner. LS: For translations of the Stoics: Long, A. A., and D. N. Sedley (eds.), 1987, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Greek and Latin texts in vol.2], which is abbreviated LS in the body of this entry.

Translations used

The list below is arranged roughly chronologically in relation to the Greek or Latin texts that are translated in each case. In addition to those listed below, The Loeb Classical Library has been used herein for the English translations of Plutarch&rsquos Lives (in eleven volumes, all translated by Bernadotte Perrin) and Moralia (in sixteen volumes, by various translators).

  • Gagarin, M. and P. Woodruff, (eds.), 1995, Early Greek Political Thought from Homer to the Sophists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylor, C.C.W. (ed.), 1999, The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus, Fragments, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • Cooper, J. M., (ed.), 1997, with D.S. Hutchinson (assoc.ed.), Plato: Complete Works, Indianapolis: Hackett.
  • Reeve, C.D.C. (tr.), 1998, Aristotle Politics, Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett.
  • Barnes, J., (ed.), 1984, The Complete Works of Aristotle, 2 vols., Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Everson, S., (ed.), 1996, Aristotle, The Politics and The Constitution of Athens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [uses translations from Barnes (ed.) 1984].
  • Long, A. A., and D. N. Sedley, (eds.), 1987, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [translations and commentary, volume 1].
  • Griffin, M.T., and E.M. Atkins, (eds.), 1991, Cicero, On Duties, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Zetzel, J.E.G., (ed.), 1999, Cicero, On the Commonwealth and On the Laws, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Inwood, B., (ed.), 2007, Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters translated with introduction and commentary, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cooper, J. M., and J.F. Procopé, 1995, Seneca: Moral and Political Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Braund, S.M. (ed.), 2009, Seneca: De Clementia, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Griffin, M., and B. Inwood (eds.), 2011, Seneca: On Benefits, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
  • King, C. (trans.), with W.B. Irvine (ed. and intro.), 2011, Musonius Rufus: Lectures and Sayings, revised edition, CreateSpace Publishing.
  • Dobbin, R.F., (ed.) 2008, Epictetus: Discourses and Selected Writings, London: Penguin.
  • Farqharson, A.S.L., (ed.), 2008, The Meditations of Marcus AureliusAntoninus, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Secondary Literature

  • Alberti, A., 1995, &ldquoThe Epicurean theory of law and justice,&rdquo in Laks and Schofield 1995 (eds.), pp.191&ndash212.
  • Annas, J., 1993, The Morality of Happiness, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 1999, Platonic Ethics Old and New, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2017, Virtue and Law in Plato and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Arendt, H., 1958, The Human Condition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Atkins, E.M., 1990, &ldquo&lsquoDomina et regina virtutum&rsquo: justice and societas in De Officiis,&rdquo Phronesis, 35: 258&ndash89.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2000, &ldquoCicero,&rdquo in Rowe and Schofield 2000, pp. 477&ndash516.
  • Atkins, J.W., 2013, Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2018, Roman Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Baraz, Y., 2012, A Written Republic: Cicero&rsquos Philosophical Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Bartels, M.L., 2017, Plato&rsquos Pragmatic Project: a reading of Plato&rsquos Laws, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
  • Bobonich, C., 2002, Plato&rsquos Utopia Recast: his later ethics and politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2015, &ldquoAristotle, political decision making, and the many,&rdquo in Aristotle&rsquos Politics: a critical guide, T. Lockwood and T. Samaras (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 142&ndash62.
  • Bodéüs, R., 1993, The Political Dimensions of Aristotle&rsquos Ethics, trans. J.E. Garrett, Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Bouchard, E., 2011, &ldquoAnalogies du pouvoir partagé: remarques sur Aristote Politique III.11,&rdquo Phronesis, 56: 162&ndash179.
  • Brunt, P.A., 2013 [1975], &ldquoStoicism and the Principate,&rdquo in P. Brunt, Studies in Stoicism, eds. M.T. Griffin and A. Samuels, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 275&ndash309.
  • Burnyeat, M., 2013, &ldquoJustice writ large and small in Republic 4,&rdquo in Politeia in Greek and Roman Philosophy, V. Harte and M. Lane (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 212&ndash230.
  • Cammack, D., 2013, &ldquoAristotle on the Virtue of the Multitude&rdquo Political Theory, 41: 175&ndash202.
  • Campbell, G., 2003, Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: a commentary on De Rerum Natura 5.772&ndash1104, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cartledge, P., 2009, Ancient Greek Political Thought in Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carawan, E., 2013, The Athenian Amnesty and Reconstructing the Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Centrone, B., 2000, &ldquoPlatonism and Pythagoreanism in the early empire,&rdquo in Rowe and Schofield (eds.), pp. 559&ndash584.
  • De Blois, L., J. Bons, T. Kessels and D.M. Schenkeveld (eds.), 2005, The Statesman in Plutarch&rsquos Greek and Roman Lives (vol.2 of The Statesman in Plutarch&rsquos Works), Leiden and Boston: Brill.
  • Dillon, J., 1997, &ldquoPlutarch and the end of history,&rdquo in Mossman 1997, pp. 233&ndash240.
  • Duvall, T., and P. Dotson, 1998, &ldquoPolitical Participation and Eudaimonia in Aristotle&rsquos Politics&rdquo History of Political Thought, 29: 21&ndash34.
  • Dyck, A.R., 1996, A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • El Murr, D., 2014, Savoir et gouverner: essai sur la science politique platonicienne, Paris: J. Vrin.
  • Frank, J., 2005, A Democracy of Distinction: Aristotle and the work of politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • von Fritz, K., 1954, The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity: a critical analysis of Polybius&rsquo political ideas, New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Fowler, D., 1989, &ldquoLucretius and Politics,&rdquo in Philosophia Togata, J. Barnes and M. Griffin (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 120&ndash150.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2007, &ldquoLucretius and Politics,&rdquo in Lucretius, M.R. Gale (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 397&ndash431.
  • Garnsey, P., 1996, Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Garver, E., 2011, Aristotle&rsquos Politics: living well and living together, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Geuss, R., 2005, &ldquoThucydides, Nietzsche, and Williams,&rdquo in his Outside Ethics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 219&ndash233.
  • Giannantoni, G., (ed.), 1990, Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae, 4 volumes, Naples: Bibliopolis.
  • Gildenhard, I., 2011Creative Eloquence: the construction of reality in Cicero&rsquos speeches, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Griffin, M.T., 1992, Seneca: a philosopher in politics, 2 nd edn, Oxford: Clarendon.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2000, &ldquoSeneca and Pliny,&rdquo in Rowe and Schofield 2000, pp. 532&ndash558.
  • Hahm, D.E., 2000, &ldquoKings and constitutions: Hellenistic theories,&rdquo in Rowe and Schofield 2000, pp. 457&ndash76.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2009, &ldquoThe Mixed Constitution in Greek Thought,&rdquo in A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, R.K. Balot (ed.), Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 178&ndash98.
  • Harte, V., 1999, &ldquoConflicting Values in Plato&rsquos Crito,&rdquo Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 81: 117&ndash147 reprinted in Kamtekar 2005, pp. 229&ndash59.
  • Höffe, O. (ed.), 1997, Platon: Politeia, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  • Inwood, B., 2005, Reading Seneca: Stoic philosophy at Rome, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Irwin, T., 1990, &ldquoThe Good of Political Activity&rdquo in Aristoteles&rsquo Politik: Akten des IX Symposium Aristotelicum, Friedrichshafen/Bodensee, 25.8&ndash3.9.1987, G. Patzig (ed.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 73&ndash98.
  • Kamtekar, R., (ed.), 2005, Plato&rsquos Euthyphro, Apology and Crito: Critical Essays, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Kempshall, M.S., 2001, &ldquoDe Re Publica I.39 in Medieval and Renaissance Political Thought,&rdquo in Powell and North (eds.), pp. 99&ndash135.
  • Klosko, G., 2006, The Development of Plato&rsquos Political Theory, revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Konvitz, M., 1964, &ldquoCivil Disobedience and the Duty of Fair Play,&rdquo in Law and Philosophy: A Symposium, S. Hook (ed.), New York: New York University Press, pp. 19&ndash28.
  • Kraut, R., 1984, Socrates and the State, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Laks, A., 1990, &ldquoLegislation and demiurgy: on the relationship between Plato&rsquos Republic and Laws,&rdquo Classical Antiquity, 9: 209&ndash29.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 1991, &ldquoL&rsquoutopie législative de Platon,&rdquo Revue philosophique, 4: 417&ndash28.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2000, &ldquoThe Laws,&rdquo in Rowe and Schofield 2000, pp. 258&ndash292.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2005, Médiation et coercition: pour une lecture des Lois de Platon, Villeneuve d&rsquoAscq: Presses universitaires du septentrion.
  • Laks, A., and M. Schofield, (eds.), 1995, Justice and Generosity: studies in Hellenistic social and political philosophy: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lane, M.S., 1998, Method and Politics in Plato&rsquos Statesman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2012, &ldquoThe Origins of the Statesman&ndashDemagogue Distinction in and after Ancient Athens,&rdquo Journal of the History of Ideas, 73: 179&ndash200.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2013a, &ldquoClaims to Rule: the case of the multitude,&rdquo in The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle&rsquos Politics, M. Deslauriers and P. Destrée (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 247&ndash274.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2013b, &ldquoFounding as Legislating: the figure of the lawgiver in Plato&rsquos Republic,&rdquo in Dialogues on Plato&rsquos Politeia. Proceedings of the IX Symposium Platonicum, , L. Brisson and N. Notomi (eds.), Sankt Augustin: Akademia Verlag, pp. 104&ndash114.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2013c, &ldquoPolitical Expertise and Political Office in Plato&rsquos Statesman: the statesman&rsquos rule (archein) and the subordinate magistracies (archai),&rdquo in Plato&rsquos Statesman: proceedings of the eighth Symposium Platonicum Pragense, A. Havliček and K. Thein (eds.), Prague, OIKOYMENH, pp. 49&ndash77.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2014a, Greek and Roman Political Ideas, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2014b, &ldquoPopular Sovereignty as Control of Officeholders: Aristotle on Greek democracy,&rdquo in Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective, R. Bourke and Q. Skinner (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52&ndash72.
  • Laurand, V., 2005, La politique stoïcienne, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
  • Lear, J., 1988, Aristotle: The Desire to Understand, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lintott, Andrew, 1999, The Constitution of the Roman Republic, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Long, A.A., 1995, &ldquoCicero&rsquos Politics in De officiis,&rdquo in Laks and Schofield 1995, pp. 213&ndash40.
  • Meier, C., 1990, trans. David McLintock, The Greek Discovery of Politics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Mossman, J., (ed.), 1997, Plutarch and His Intellectual World, London: Duckworth.
  • Nails, D., 2002, The People of Plato: a prosopography of Plato and other Socratics, Indianapolis: Hackett.
  • Nightingale, A., 1993a, Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the construction of philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 1993b, &ldquoWriting/Reading a Sacred Text: a literary interpretation of Plato&rsquos Laws,&rdquo Classical Philology, 88: 279&ndash300.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 1999, &ldquoPlato&rsquos Lawcode in Context: rule by written law in Athens and Magnesia,&rdquo The Classical Quarterly (New Series), 49: 100&ndash122.
  • Nussbaum, M.C., 1980, &ldquoShame, Separateness, and Political Unity: Aristotle&rsquos criticism of Plato,&rdquo in Essays on Aristotle&rsquos Ethics, A.O. Rorty (ed.), Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 395&ndash436.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 1993, &ldquoNon-relative Virtues: an Aristotelian approach,&rdquo in The Quality of Life, M.C. Nussbaum and A. Sen (eds.), 1993, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 242&ndash69.
  • Ober, J., 1989, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: rhetoric, ideology, and the power of the people, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 1998a, &ldquoThe Polis as a Society: Aristotle, John Rawls, and the Athenian Social Contract,&rdquo as reprinted in his The Athenian Revolution, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 161&ndash187.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 1998b, Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: intellectual critics of popular rule, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2008, Democracy and Knowledge: innovation and learning in classical Athens, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2013, &ldquoDemocracy&rsquos Wisdom: An Aristotelian Middle Way for Collective Judgment,&rdquo American Political Science Review, 107: 104&ndash122.
  • O&rsquoMeara, D.J., 2003, Platonopolis: Platonic political philosophy in late antiquity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Poddighe, E., 2014, Aristotele, Atene e le metamorfosi dell&rsquoidea democratica: da Solone a Pericle (594&ndash451 a.C.), Rome: Carocci editore.
  • Powell, J.G.F., and J.A. North, (eds.), 2001, Cicero&rsquos Republic, London: Institute of Classical Studies.
  • Riesbeck, D.J., 2016, Aristotle on Political Community, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Robitzsch, J.M., 2017, &ldquoThe Epicureans on Human Nature and its Social and Political Consequences,&rdquo Polis, 34: 1&ndash19.
  • Sachs, D., &ldquoA Fallacy in Plato&rsquos Republic,&rdquo The Philosophical Review, 72 (1963): 141&ndash158 reprinted in G. Vlastos (ed.) Plato: a collection of critical essays, II: Ethics, Politics, and Philosophy of Art and Religion (New York: Doubleday and Company, 1971), pp. 35&ndash51.
  • Schofield, M., 1991, The Stoic Idea of the City, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press reprinted 1999, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 1999, &lsquoEquality and hierarchy in Aristotle&rsquos thought&rsquo, in his Saving the City: Philosopher-Kings and other classical paradigms, London and New York: Routledge, ch.6 (pp. 88&ndash100).
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, 2006, Plato. Political Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Sedley, D.N., 1997, &ldquoThe Ethics of Brutus and Cassius,&rdquo Journal of Roman Studies, 87: 41&ndash53.
  • Shear, J.L., 2011, Polis and Revolution: responding to oligarchy in classical Athens, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sharples, R., 1996, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics: an introduction to Hellenistic philosophy, London: Routledge.
  • Smith, M. F. (ed.), 1992, The Epicurean Inscription / Diogenes of Oenoanda, Naples: Bibliopolis.
  • &ndash&ndash&ndash, (ed.), 2003, Supplement to The Epicurean Inscription / Diogenes of Oenoanda, Naples: Bibliopolis.
  • Trapp, M.B., 2007, Philosophy in the Roman Empire: Ethics, Politics and Society, Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Tuck, R., 1990, &ldquoHumanism and Political Thought,&rdquo in A. Goodman and A. MacKay (eds.), The Impact of Humanism on Western Europe, New York: Longman, pp. 43&ndash65.
  • Van Raalte, M., 2005, &ldquoMore philosophico: Political Virtue and Philosophy in Plutarch&rsquos Lives,&rdquo in De Blois et. al. (eds.) 2005, pp. 75&ndash112.
  • Vander Waerdt, P.A., 1991, &ldquoThe Plan and Intention of Aristotle&rsquos Ethical and Political Writings,&rdquo Illinois Classical Studies, 16: 231&ndash253.
  • Veyne, P., 2003, Seneca: The Life of a Stoic, trans. D. Sullivan, New York: Routledge.
  • Villa, D., 2001, Socratic Citizenship, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Vogt, K.M., 2008, Law, Reason, and the Cosmic City: Political Philosophy in the Early Stoa, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Waldron, J., 1995, &ldquoThe Wisdom of the Multitude: Some Reflections on Book 3, Chapter 11 of Aristotle&rsquos Politics,&rdquo Political Theory, 23: 563&ndash584.
  • Weiss, R., 1998, Socrates Dissatisfied: an analysis of Plato&rsquos Crito, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Wilson, J.L., 2011, &ldquoDeliberation, Democracy, and the Rule of Reason in Aristotle&rsquos Politics,&rdquo American Political Science Review, 105: 259&ndash274.
  • Woozley, A.D., 1972, &ldquoSocrates on Disobeying the Law,&rdquo in The Philosophy of Socrates: a collection of critical essays, G. Vlastos (ed.), Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, pp. 299&ndash318.
  • Yack, B., 1993, The Problems of a Political Animal: community, justice, and conflict in Aristotelian political thought, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Reference Works

  • Aalders, G.J.D., 1975, Political Thought in Hellenistic Times, Amsterdam: H.M. Hakkert.
  • Algra, K., and J. Barnes, J. Mansfeld and M. Schofield, (eds.), 1999, The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Armstrong, A.H., (ed.), 1967, The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Balot, Ryan K., (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Coleman, J., 2000, A History of Political Thought, vol.1: From Ancient Greece to Early Christianity, Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Keyt, D., and F.D. Miller, Jr., (eds.), 1991, A Companion to Aristotle&rsquos Politics, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
  • Keyt, D., and F.D. Miller, Jr., (eds.), 2007, Freedom, Reason, and the Polis: Essays in Ancient Greek Political Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rowe, C., & M. Schofield, (eds.), 2000, The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sharples, R. W., 1996, Stoics, Epicureans and Skeptics, London: Routledge.

There are useful series of Cambridge Companions, Cambridge Histories, and Blackwell Companions, among other such series, to various authors, texts, and schools, some of which are cited above. An authoritative source of important articles is H. Temporini (ed.), 1972&ndash, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.